What is Digg?171 Comments
- bobbybobington, on 10/12/2007, -6/+82Hurray for pirates! ....errr i mean ....ARRRGGH FER ME MATIES ARRGGHH!!
- decomp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37You're dumb. It's the young people that will make the decisions for the world of tomorrow. It's a good thing when kids aren't mindless zombies filled with the "moral" brainwashing of **AA.
- Kosterfield, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33It's not just limited to Sweden. The young people in the US support file sharing too. We just don't happen to have a Pirate Party to elect into office.
- Tiabin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35I'd also like to add that, though I'm not a hippie, if hippies WERE the majority of votes it probably wouldn't be that bad of a thing. It's much better than the "protect the environment? Hell no! Piss all over the world! We're human, made in God's image, he'll protect us!' attitude that seems to be the common one in this area.
I'm not joking... that above opinion is literally the one I've heard people spout off with less blunt terminology. "Even if global warming is real, don't you think God wouldn't protect us?" That is a statement that came from a VOTING relative of mine when we were talking about global warming.
So what's my opinion on hippies? The bastards... How dare them be obsessed with loving the world, hating war, smoking pot, and kindness. Look, I may not be digging the whole growing long hair and acting like a chick part of it, but I know somewhere inside of me there's a little hippie. The part that doesn't think that humanity is so depraved it deserves every bit of torment it heaps upon its own shoulders. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28It's only illegal if you get caught.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31"The hippie movement 30 years ago results in the election of George W Bush now?"
Well... Without all the voters smoking large amounts of pot, how else do you suppose he got elected? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Actually, we may have one soon: http://www.pirate-party.us/
- Agret, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Young people supporting piracy? That'll be the day......
- Tiabin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33The hippies are clearly not the majority of votes...
Our government will always suck because the dumbest people are bound to reproduce more. Why? Because the intelligent understand that more children = less freedom, and less money. Our materialistic society is structured so that the ignorant, and those who improperly use birth control (the ignorant) will have more voting power. - maniacmatt2788, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23I think I speak for all of us when I say... YARRRR!!!
- lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Well, in all honesty, they really should. If they were legally sold, would you see drug cartels popping up in Latin America?
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Well, Steve, can you copy it and make a duplicate truck to take home without harming the original?
- Xanin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18just because they're not from your country you don't care?
- lolox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15In some places, drugs for personal use are. mostly in Europe, where guns are not, and you can say ***** on TV.
- decomp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19@jqp123
It may currently be illegal to pirate music, but it's not immoral or wrong. Artists do, indeed, deserve to be compensated. The issue is how they are currently being compensated. The current system is out-moded and needs revising.
Also, you misunderstood my post. I wasn't implying that morals should be associated with brainwashing. I was saying that **AA is doing the brainwashing, under the guise of morality. - joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Yeah, Mexico just legalized personal quantities of ALL drugs recently so that they can bust the actual dealers. It's one country that finally realized that outlawing them completely doesn't really help much in the long run, it just creates a black market.
- smartpatrol, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15It's because young people don't even vote in America. Why should politicians try to please us?
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15mostly because they don't have the skills required to obtain media which could cost nothing to obtain by legal means. the main reason adults are more likely to buy media is because they can afford to.
i pirated most of the high end software i use today when i was younger because i was unable to pay 2000+ dollars for office, windows, photoshop, and the like. now that i can i support those who make the best product for my money - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I don't use drugs, and i think drugs should be legal. Sorry for the off topic response, but lets see here...
1. The CIA has been caught running drugs.
2. The 2 biggest financers of lobbying to keep drugs illegal are a) Drug lords, B) the privatized prison building industry.
3. The DEA successfully stopped only 1% of the drug trade last year, even though we spent over a billion dollars trying to keep drugs off our street.
4. The blackmarket, gangs, terrorist groups, profit very hansomely becuase drugs are illegal. If made legal, they're biggest source of money goes away. Not only that, but b/c it's illegal drugs have 500% (minimum) price markup.
5. You think the drug market is dangerous in america b/c of it's illegality b/c we have a few shootouts here? You know nothing, entire families are enslaved by drug lords to work fields, police departments bought off, politicians bought and paid for. This is a reality of latin america.
6. Just like with prostitution, drugs are a victimless crime. A human being decides what to do or not to with themselves. How someone or groups of people think they have the moral authority to dictate to the rest of the world what they do with their own bodies, are morons.
7, We take drug dealers/users and throw them in prison with murders, rapists and thieves. I dunno about you, but i don't see them finding any positive influences in there and coming out "better people".
Soo.. shut it. - lolox, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Culture is a need.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@loler
If it were legal they would not be called "drug cartels" they would be called "pharmaceutical corporations." - decomp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Actually, I don't see many artists having an issue with it. A few, of course, but most do not. Artists generally appreciate being appreciated. It's the bloodsucking **AA.
- phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Just to clarify.
The legal definition of Distribution requires a physical object to be moved around. Copying bits is not distribution. Radio play is not distribution.
Copying is not Stealing.
Ideas are not Property.
Sharing ideas is a natural right.
Limited monopolies are to encourage progress by society giving up some of its natural rights. Stop reframing the debate and maybe a debate can start and maybe young people would feel totally disenfranchised. - Ensnared, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8We as a society allow people to vote from the year they turn 18, and if I read the article correctly, the youngest people asked were 18-20.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14NEWSFLASH: The majority of young people everywhere like getting stuff for free.
- lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10On top of that, it isn't wrong if you need it. Of course, this usually applies to food and such, but you get the point.
- ummagummas08, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11First of all, why does everyone think all hippies are the same, I consider myself sort of a hippy, but I'm not all pro-environment, I mean I'm already pretty sure we've done a good job of ***** that over. In fact, I think hippies are the only true patriots we have left, the ones who actually care about the future of our country.
Secondly, young people DONT have a say in todays society, contrary to popular belief. We want to have a say, but all the ***** corporations like Clearchannel and our ***** ass retarded media make it almost impossible for the word of ANY kind of movement out. Sure there are movements out there, but what do you see more of on CNN: who won the MTV music awards, or the genocide that's currently occurring in Darfur? (If you didn't guess, it was the first of the two)
Lastly, is this really a surprise that Swedish kids would rather share files then go out and buy them? I mean why would it be SO much different there than here? I mean it's basically illegal here, and its still illegal there, so I don't see why this is such an article thats like 'WOAHMG THATS SO AWESOME, GOOD FOR THEM'
Ugh, tired of the US, I think the bird flu will actually do us all some good, bringing us americans back to reality. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"If it were legal they would not be called "drug cartels" they would be called "pharmaceutical corporations."", yes, yes they would. They would also be taxed, and not run by criminals.
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9It would be okay if you couldn't afford the original or print and you just wanted to be able to remember the art somewhere outside of your own memory.
I don't think very many people have a moral problem with taking photos of artwork, no matter how many megapixels it might have. What's your reasoning there? - YukiCuss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8`...during national elections are in favor of file downloading - despite the fact that it is illegal.'
File downloading is illegal now!? Looks like I'd better stop it at once!
And I suppose, that since retrieving any web page is downloading some form of media, whether it be HTML or some binary, I should stop browsing too. 'cause it's illegal. - rainrunner87, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Looks like Sweden's going to have a political scene to watch in the near future. Might galvanize us youthful pirates in other countries, and just maybe it'll get some momentum. Definitely worth paying attention to.
Also, maybe we'll think to start a pirate party? - there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8 Here is the way the industry gets politicians to subtlety manipulate the public...
----
"It is alarming that so many young people think everything should be free," said Ella Bohlin, Christian Democrat Youth Party chairman.
----
Who said "everything should be free"? All we are just arguing for free data because it creates a moral nightmare and gives the state even more power to spy and manipulate us. If you don't like it.... stop making movies/music and get back to selling used cars. Culture... music.... and art will not die.
----
"They don%u2019t understand that you're stealing, and that you are maybe taking income from small artists."
----
You don't understand that "stealing" is only a term YOU use. We aren't taking your data... we are duplicating it, editing it and dicing it into a million other ways.. and sending it right back out into the world where you are free to do the same.
To be fair, you're right it is taking income from some artists. However those artists need to get back to the reasons why they created art in first place. To share their joy of living with others and to express injustice when it is happening. Instead many of them have turned into sellouts that stay quiet against greedy industry execs (least it hurt their piggybanks) They've lost the tempo of what culture has always been about and allowed themselves to become just another greedy corporation.
They can put a front up to the dwindling fans that it's different--- but they can't hide from their own souls that knows it's true. Stand up for us again... don't become the machine. We need one place we can free ourselves at times from this... and you're it. - andreascliment, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Filesharing is not stealing. Stealing is when you take an object from someone and that person doesn't have the object anymore. Filesharing is copying, and through techniques like BitTorrent, it makes the distribution costs of media almost nothing at all.
Yes, the artists should get payed for their work, but it can not be justified that a song or a movie costs almost as much to download as it costs to buy in a store, because the copying and distribution costs of the media are virtually gone. If the companies stopped being so greedy gave the people the material they want through the distribution systems they want (Internet/filesharing) at prices that actually reflect the cost of supplying the material then there wouldn't be such a large problem with filesharing.
New techniques that make life easier for the consumers are invented every day. Trying to prevent people from using them is never going to work, so the best option for the companies is to supply these techniques themselves.
It should also be noted that piracy, as in copying material made by others and SELLING it is very wrong. The persons who do that are the ones that should be prosecuted and not regular persons who share files because they find filesharing to be a better alternative to the old distribution system. - j0keR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@HMTKSteve
George Orwell touched on this in one of his essays. People skew language to their own point-of-view. The RIAA / MPAA are famous for this. They call people who download copyrighted materials "pirates." When in reality, they are copyright infringers. Also, they're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but the music / movie industries prefer their own MAFIAA-like style legal system. - CursedMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6File sharing is legal, copyright infringement is not. There's a difference.
- iLEZ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8...and Canadians, and Dutch, and Norwegians, and Danish, and English.
- phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Many people want to support the people who made the music but they realise that if they bought the album the money would goto pointless evil scum and not to the band.
Has anyone here actually read: The Manual (How to Have a Number One the Easy Way).
Oooh give Sony your money they support artists. Oooh you stole something by listening to it. Oooh artists need to get paid give your money to Sony.
Just stop with mouthing the propoganda. Its all lies. - CaptRR, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You know, I think when you get right down to it, this is the **AA's greatest fears. They know that while young people may not vote in great numbers, they will be older one day, and will be voters, lawmakers, etc, and they will be much more tech savvy than their predecessors.
They also know that its harder to get rid of a law once its on the books, so they are trying to get as many laws down before the tech savvy lawmakers come into power. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Sorry, you're taking the artists work and using it without compensation. That will always be wrong and immoral."
Really? What if the artist was Hitler and I was making copies of his art in the streets of Munich in 1936 without compensating him and gave the money to people that hide jewish people.
You see morality isn't always black and white. It is always shades of gray... Sometimes things are more gray and lighter gray than others, but never ever say something is right or wrong because you can always find situations where they aren't so. - there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Stop stealing"
If your going to argue this case... at least get your propaganda terms correct. The term is "copyright infringement'. The supreme court rightfully made the distinction in the 70's from "stealing".. because in fact nothing goes missing.
You assume that others still don't pay for music or movies or other things when in fact fans are the ones that are both sharing files AND buying the music. Meanwhile...
---- Government surveillance keeps increasing
--- companies profit from MP3 players that hold tens of thousands of songs... and then pretend that all those songs are paid for.
--- DVD/CD burner companies make billions selling blank medias and players.
--- Computer companies make zillions selling hardware to play that culture
--- RIAA/MPAA takes cultures that they've "stolen" from our collective history and regurgitates it.
--- Companies like Google have made billions by promoting the FREE exchange of data.
Sharing data freely is terrible? Whatever dude.
Don't give us a two word answer to explain away these things and think we are going to take you seriously. Just do what your type always does... come to our homes at gunpoint and make sure we do things your way. - there, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"File sharing is legal, copyright infringement is not. There's a difference."
The only difference is that they haven't found a way for any type of sharing to become illegal... but they are working hard towards this goal. Basically they think anyone that shares is a commie. - phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I think pirates support art, risk jail and all because they are true believers.
They want art to be free as in Liberty.
They want to destroy unjust laws.
They are supporting artists far better than **AA, record cartels and all.
Artists are supported by consumption of their work. Money is a separate issue, everyone needs a little money to get buy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Dont bother with HKTSteve or whatever his name is.. his only purpose on digg.com is to troll every thread with his anti-sharing, anti-Net Neutrality, and pro-drm views.
Don't feed the troll. - phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Here's a musicians take on piracy.
"
Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
I'm talking about major label recording contracts.
" ...
"If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.
Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals ... zero!
How much does the record company make?
They grossed $11 million.
It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000 in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.
The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.
They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That's mostly retail advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.
Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.
So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.
" -- from
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html?pn=1
C'mon your not arguing for compensation for artists your arguing to prop up a long-con. Stop fighting for the rights of Hollywood over the rights of us all. - jeruvin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7At one point in America it was LEGAL to have slaves. It's no longer legal as the laws have changed. And rightfully so. Is this similiar to what is going on here. Where something that used to (now) be illegal will someday be legal and accepted? I for one hope that we move to a more diverse music listening experience. I hardly ever listen to the radio as it is the same group of songs over and over again. I can surf the net and find some actual NEW music to listen to.
The world is getting tired of being fed the same old stuff over and over again just to make a profit for the few at the top. I hope things start to change as it's currently going down the wrong path. More variety and the ability to purchase music that I can share across all my devices at home. Is that really asking for too much? - joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Maybe when the small artists that were "MAYBE" taking income from get more than 7 cents an MP3, I'll be happier paying for music. There is absolutely no reason that the other 93 cents should go to the RIAA and their lawyers. Hell, THEY'RE stealing from the musicians by paying millions of dollars for the lawyers they use to sue that small bands newest fans.
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That's what PATENTS are for, Steve, not copyright.
Learn your laws. - digitaldarkage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7True; due to pressure from the good ol US of A. And we promptly returned the favor by militarizing the border.
- sintaks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ HMTKSteve
If you're paying for the content, not the media in which it was distributed, and the artist only makes say, 7c off each MP3 downloaded (at a buck a pop), then where is the other 93% going?
In reality, the majority of what you're paying for is not content. You're paying for the overhead required to get the content out there. With P2P, that overhead... disappears. My argument doesn't make provisions for that 7c, however... if only there was a magical place where MP3s could be sold for 7c a piece... - phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@HTMKSteve
Yes OK you are right every time you look at that copy the artist loses a little money.
Hollywood spends frillions manipulating the young into obsessing over crap - fair enough but expecting the government to enforce a monopoly over sharing this crap so they can milk less art for more dollars. That is basically Stalinistic Communism.
What if Rock and Roll could destroy repressive regimes with songs of freedom ?
What if someone said I was gonna blow stuff up and then I heard this great track that I downloaded.
Piracy is Right. -
Show 51 - 100 of 171 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is